1

Focus on
cycling
Copenhagen Guidelines for
the Design of Road Projects
 Foreword
Copenhagen aims to be the most bicycle friendly city in the world. This goal was
unanimously approved by the City Council as an integral part of the vision to
make Copenhagen an eco-metropolis. In concrete terms this means that there
are stated political objectives aimed at increasing the share of Copenhageners
that cycle, their sense of security in traffic, and their cycling comfort. Most re-
cently these high political aspirations resulted in the “Copenhagen Bicycle Stra-
tegy 2011-2025”, unanimously adopted by the City Council.

One of the features set forth in the Bicycle Strategy is the PLUSnet, which sets a
higher standard than ever before for cycle-friendly traffic design in the most im-
portant corridors. Copenhagen roads and bicycle facilities can and must be desig-
ned to be safe, easily passable and comfortable, and provide cyclists with a sense
of security. This also applies to school roads, enabling children to bike safely to
school.

Copenhagen road projects should be an integral part of a holistic approach. For

example, when planning cycling facilities it is vital to factor in pedestrian safety
as well; green waves can be synchronized so as to benefit both cyclists and bus-
ses. However, bicycle traffic should have priority over motor traffic in intersec-
tions and sections where limited space is available. This is a consequence of the
FOCUS ON CYCLING top political priority given to cycling.
Copenhagen Guidelines
for the Design of Road Projects The goal of the guidelines set forth in Focus on Cycling is to ensure that bicycle
December 2013 traffic is factored into all Copenhagen road projects to the greatest extent pos-
sible, on a level that corresponds to the city’s political aspirations, regardless of
City of Copenhagen whether the actual project is a cycling project or a more general traffic project.
Technical and Environmental Administration Furthermore, the guidelines are intended to ensure a consistent traffic design.
Traffic Department. The Bicycle Programme In addition, the guidelines are expected to optimize the planning of new projects
since external consultants – who design the City’s road projects – will understand
Translation // Joan Høberg-Petersen Copenhagen’s political objectives from the beginning of the planning process.
LAYOUT // TMF Graphic Design
Cover photo // Ursula Bach As compared to the Danish Road Standards for city areas, which sets forth broad,
Photo // Niels Jensen et al general guidelines, “Focus on cycling – the City of Copenhagen Guidelines for the
Printed by // GSB Grafisk Design of Road Projects” raises the bar for the Copenhagen cycling infrastructure.

“Focus on Cycling” is translated from “Cykelfokus – Københavns We hope you enjoy reading “Focus on Cycling” – and even more, we hope you
Kommunes retningslinjer for vejprojekter”. The reader is advised enjoy using it!
that this publication is intended as the City of Copenhagen’s
guidelines and should be understood within a Danish context. The
solutions set forth here are not necessarily immediately applica-
Niels Tørsløv, Director, Traffic Department, City of Copenhagen
ble elsewhere. Any comments or questions regarding the publica-
tion should be addressed to The Bicycle Programme: Niels Jensen
niejen@tmf.kk.dk or Andreas Røhl androl@tmf.kk.dk.

Contents
Introduction 5
1. Intersections 6
2. Sections 12
3. Other Cycling Infrastructure 16
4. Factoring Maintenance In 20
5. Facilities and Equipment 22
The Planning Process 24
5
Introduction
”Focus on Cycling – Copenhagen Guidelines for the Design of Road Projects” is
addressed to collegues and consultants in the City of Copenhagen. It translates
the City of Copenhagen’s traffic policies into practical guidelines on the project
level.
A goal that has top priority in Copenhagen is that roads and paths must be
designed to be safe; the number of injured and killed must be minimized.
Another overriding goal is to encourage even more people to cycle by improving
cyclist sense of security since people need to feel secure before venturing to cycle.
The objective that roads shall be easily passable will make bicycle traffic more
competitive. Finally, a comfortable ride is an important element of a positive
cycling experience, which may encourage more people to cycle.
Copenhagen faces a particular “challenge”, which many foreign visitors say they
wish they had: cycle track congestion. We need to address this issue so as to
ensure sufficient bicycle traffic capacity and “flow”, but on the other hand there
are very few places where the cycle track needs to be 4 m wide. The first-class
PLUSnet and the Cycle Super Highways set a particularly high standard.
The traditional and time-tested solutions of the Danish Road Standards for city
areas are the fundamental code of practice in Copenhagen. Almost all the Road
Standards are formulated as guidelines thereby providing ample opportunity
to develop workable solutions. Copenhagen and other cities are currently
implementing innovative solutions – pilot projects that sometimes require
dispensation from the Road Standards. New solutions will gradually become
main stream and be incorporated into the Road Standards.
Copenhagen has a special focus on designing intersections that are safe, easily
passable for cyclists, and where they feel secure. Consequently, “Focus on
Cycling” begins with a survey of bicycle friendly intersection solutions. The next
chapter deals with section solutions, routes and other cycling infrastructure
facilities. Operational considerations must be factored into the design, facilities
and equipment, and is also crucial for a well-functioning cycling infrastructure.
ITS, Intelligent Traffic Systems, is a new option for making traffic more bicycle-
friendly.
“Focus on Cycling” was prepared by Niels Jensen, Traffic Department, The Bicycle
Programme. The draft was discussed in a working party consisting of Jens Løwe
(Department of Construction), Peter Fjeldsted (Project Assessment), and Anne
Eriksson (Road Safety). A broad audience reviewed the work at the halfway point
providing useful suggestions, many of which have been included in the present
publication.
1
6 7
INTERSECTIONS
The term intersection is here broadly defined as the points on the road network
where road users must cross each other’s lanes. This applies not only to the
major signalized intersections that spring to mind, but also to all other types
of intersection, such as duty-to-yield intersections, driveways, cycle path
terminations, roundabouts, etc.
The majority of all Copenhagen traffic accidents occur in intersections and that’s
where cyclists often feel insecure and find road passability difficult. Intersections
should be designed so as to minimize and clearly indicate the potential conflict
points (i.e. points where road users need to cross each other’s lanes) and to
ensure that road users travel at the appropriate low speed. On the other hand,
the goal is not to completely control all conflicts.
Cyclists should be made clearly visible in intersections. The “10 metre rule”
prohibits motor vehicle parking close to intersections. In addition, parked cars
should be kept out of the approach area, there should be no verge between the
cycle track and the traffic lane, and cyclists and cars should be positioned in such
a way that turning drivers, especially bus and lorry drivers, can see cyclists; to the
greatest possible extent cyclists should have their own designated space.
Left: Pre-green for cyclists.
Frederiksundsvej/Frederiksborgvej
intersection.
Right: Green right-turn arrow
for cars at the end of the phase
(in accordance with the Road
Standards) to prevent conflict
between right-turning cars and
cyclists waiting at the corner.
Frederikssundsvej/Frederiksborgvej
intersection.
Signalized intersections
It is essential to integrate traffic signals and infrastructure. Most Copenhagen
signal systems have fixed programs. Cyclist passability, safety and sense
of security should be taken into account in the comparatively few existing
intersections which are dynamically controlled by traffic – and in all future
regulations of this kind. In recent years conflicts with left-turning cars have been
regulated in some major signalized intersections. This makes circulation times
longer for everyone but provides a significant safety benefit.
When planners are considering how to give cyclists more space in existing More space for bicycle traffic
intersections, one obvious solution is to decide whether one or more motor
vehicle turn lanes can be discontinued in favour of combined turn and straight-
ahead lanes. Another point to consider is whether traffic lane width can be
reduced – always allowing, however, for the necessary radius of curvature and
sufficient space for heavy vehicles, especially busses in service.
Set back stop-lines for cars are standard in signalized intersections when the Set back stop-lines for
cycle track/lane continues all the way up to the pedestrian crossing. The stop-line cars are standard
needs to be set back 5 m so a lorry driver waiting to turn right on green can see a
cyclist waiting at the stop-line to go straight ahead on green. Furthermore, set-
back stop lines generally make it easier for drivers to see crossing pedestrians.
When special bicycle signals have been installed, set-back stop lines for cars Pre-green for cyclists
are unnecessary since cyclists can be given 4 seconds pre-green. Whenever are another option
busses going straight ahead are given pre-green, cyclists should also be given
pre-green, but only if a cycle track exists. Right-turning cars should be given No pre-green for
green at the end of the signal-cycle rather than pre-green so as to prevent right-turning cars
conflict with cyclists waiting at the corner. This solution is recommended by the
Road Standards as well as by road safety auditors since there will be no cyclists
waiting at the corner.
Cyclist signals are normally placed on the main signal pole. A low signal should Cyclist signals
be placed near the pole in the cyclist’s direction of travel to prevent pedestrians
from running into it, at a minimum height of 1.5 m. An extra cyclist signal placed
on a hanger may be easier to see and obey (make sure there is no risk of collision).
Pre-green for cyclists should last minimum 4 sec.
Top: This first attempt at
establishing a waiting space for
left-turning cyclists is located at
the restructured Gyldenløvesgade
intersection by the Lakes. An extra
blue cycle crossing guides turning
cyclists into the waiting space.
Bottom: Waiting space delimited by
blue cycle crossing. The blue cycle
crossing makes it clear to left-
turning cyclists that they can wait
between the cycle crossing and
the zebra crossing. This gives more
space to cyclists going straight
ahead. Havnegade/Niels Juelsgade
intersection.
8 9

Cyclist waiting space on corner makes it easier for cyclists to position themselves
appropriately so they don’t get in the way of cyclists who wish to go straight
ahead. A waiting space makes sense when there are a great many left-turning
cyclists. Space can be established for left-turning cyclists to the right of cyclists
TRACK
going straight ahead by setting the pedestrian crossing area 2-3 meters back in
relation to the crossing. The pedestrian crossing should not be moved further
back since this would increase the risk of turning cars overlooking pedestrians as
well as being unfavourable to the disabled.
Full width cycle track all the way to the intersection is the standard solution in
Copenhagen and should usually be installed. However, if there is only space for a
narrow (1.5 m) cycle lane, this is an acceptable solution. The City of Copenhagen
had Trafitec consulting carry out a safety analysis of narrow cycle lanes that also
LANE TRACK analyzed cyclist sense of security; a narrow cycle lane up to the intersection is
safe, is experienced by cyclists as secure, and is easily passable. When the cycle
track or cycle lane continues to the intersection there should be a separate right-
turn lane or right-turn ban for motor traffic whenever possible.
Shortened cycle track should be the exception. It is true that the solution
provides greater capacity for motor traffic and is as safe as the best designs for
cycle tracks/lanes leading all the way to the intersection. However, many cyclists
feel insecure when the cycle track is shortened, and the intersection is less
easily passable than when the cycle track/lane terminates at the intersection.
Whenever possible, existing shortened cycle tracks should be continued up to
the intersection. Shortened cycle tracks may be chosen when there is a steep
longitudinal gradient and cyclists quickly approach the intersection.
When the proportion of right-turning cars is very large, one option is to continue
TRACK the cycle track up to the intersection with pre-green for cyclists while shortening
the time allotted to cyclists at the end of the phase. A right-turn arrow at the end
of the phase benefits motor traffic flows. An alternative option is to establish a
traffic island. The island should be established between the right-turn lane and the
straight-ahead lane for motor vehicles. Traffic islands require a good deal of space.
The signal should be designed so that cyclists can ride straight past the island’s
signal without having to stop again. It is important to ensure, in a calculation, that
there will be enough space for all cyclists to wait on the traffic island.
A wide cycle track directly after the intersection should be installed where there Wide cycle track directly
are large numbers of cyclists. Ample space after the intersection makes it easy after the intersection
for the group of cyclists who have just crossed on green to merge. 20-30 m after
the intersection the cycle track can be narrowed down again to standard width
(preferably gradually). This solution was recently implemented for the first
time in Copenhagen and, after being tested in other locations, it is expected to
become main stream.
A bike box is a marked area in front of the motor traffic stop-line where there is Bike boxes in intersections
space for waiting cyclists. There must be a cycle lane or track directly up to the
box. Cycle boxes benefit motorists as well as cyclists since a group of cyclists can
move through quickly; this means that cars can turn right faster than if they had LANE
to wait for a long line of bicycles to move out of the intersection. BOX
The box should be long enough so cyclists can “all fit in”. It should only be installed
in front of the inner traffic lane since a design in which the box approaches the
middle of the intersection might tempt cyclists to make a turn left in the middle
of the intersection, which is illegal in Denmark (cyclists are required to approach
the opposite corner before turning left).
Tests have been carried out in Copenhagen with two types of bike box (blue box
and box marked with white lines) in T-intersections and four-legged intersections.
The evaluation shows that boxes in both types of intersection helped improve
security and passability without affecting safety. Bike boxes may consequently
be used routinely.
Blue cycle crossings are installed to make cyclists visible and perhaps also to guide Blue cycle crossings
them through a complex intersection. An initial analysis of the likely location of
the worst cycle-motor conflicts should be carried out; 1-2 blue cycle crossings
per intersection may then be installed. A City of Copenhagen study carried out
by Trafitec consulting showed that one blue cycle crossing has a positive safety
impact, whereas more than one has a negative impact. This was subsequently
re-evaluated internally and up to 2 blue cycle crossings per intersection may
be installed, after careful consideration and a thorough analysis of the safety
factors involved. (It may be advisable to consult with the Copenhagen road
safety department.) The cycle crossing must not clash with motor vehicles’ curve
radius.

Top left: A cycle track leading Top left: Bike box (white marked)
up to the intersection is the in T-intersection. Njalsgade/Islands
standard Copenhagen solution. Brygge intersection.
Vesterbrogade /Gasværksvej
intersection. See also front page Bottom left: Bike box (blue
photo of the same location. marked) in front of the inner
lane of a 4-legged intersection.
Bottom left: Narrow cycle lane Amagerbrogade/Vejlands Allé
leading up to the intersection. intersection.
Reventlowsgade/Vesterbrogade
intersection. Top right: Up to two blue cycle
crossings are an option in signalized
Top right: A wide cycle track on Copenhagen intersections.
the first section directly after the Tagensvej/Blegdamsvej intersection.
intersection makes it easy for all
the cyclists from Dronning Louises Bottom right: Minimal international
Bridge to merge. cycle crossing in which the cycle
crossing is only marked halfway
Bottom right: Traffic island that into the intersection and only on
allows cyclists to ride straight the cyclist’s left, thereby marking
ahead past the island without only the point of potential conflict.
extra waiting time. Blegdamsvej/ Vester Fælledvej/Ny Carlsbergvej
Tagensvej intersection. intersection.
10
Minimal, half, and full
cycle crossings
Right-turn/left-turn lane
on cycle tracks
Cycling right on red
Shunts
Cyclist left-turn in
separate phase
Top: Signalized intersection with
well-functioning right-turn lane on
a wide cycle track from Langebro to
Rysensteensgade.
Bottom left: Signalized intersection
with well-functioning left-turn
lane from Vesterbrogade towards
Værnedamsvej and Frederiksberg
Allé.
Bottom right: Non-signalized
intersection between the Green
Cycle Route, the Nørrebro route,
and Stefansgade.
Minimal, half and full cycle crossings are collectively known in Copenhagen as
international cycle crossings. They are delineated by a broken white line and the
bicycle symbol and are a less conspicuous form of designation than the blue cycle
crossing. The minimal crossing is standard in all legs of a signalized intersection
where a blue cycle crossing is not installed. Cycle crossings must not conflict with
motor vehicles’ curve radius.
Right turn/left turn lanes on cycle tracks can improve cyclists passability
at intersections. For example right-turning bicycle traffic should be allowed
simultaneously with right-turning motor traffic at the end of the green phase. It
only makes sense to install a right-turn lane when there is a large proportion of
right-turning bicycle traffic since otherwise too much cycle track capacity is lost.
When there is a large amount of bicycle traffic the solution should only be used
on a three lane cycle track (PLUSnet standard, i.e. 3.0 m, perhaps 2.8 m wide).
When there is a small amount of bicycle traffic a 2 lane (approx. 2 m wide) cycle
track termination can be divided into a right-turn/left-turn lane and a straight-
ahead lane.
A new and as yet untried idea is to establish a right turn lane to pre-sort cyclists
in two groups – those intending to go straight on when they get green, and those
intending to turn right. This may optimize traffic flows.
Cycling right on red requires little or no space, but no standard solution exists in
Denmark. The Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Transport have taken steps
to initiate a Cycling on Red project at three locations in Copenhagen in 2014.
The police have to approve the projects and all future designs. “Shunts”, where
cyclists go straight ahead past the signal, should always be considered when
there are many right-turning cyclists.
Separate left-turn phase for cyclists may be considered where there is a
particularly large volume of left-turning bicycle traffic. Motor traffic going in the
same direction can turn at the same time. The solution has been used in Holland.
The Copenhagen Bicycle Programme is considering a pilot project and is looking
for a suitable location.
11
In T-intersections cyclists should be exempted from the signal control in the Cycle-friendly T-intersections
“T-bar” and instead must yield to pedestrians in uncontrolled zebra crossings.
This saves cyclists waiting time. The design is fairly widespread on the primary
Copenhagen road network, e.g. Ring 2, but is less common in the central areas
of the city. In T-intersections left-turn lanes for cyclists may be installed in the
“T-bar” to help them position themselves appropriately, particularly when there
is a lot of turning traffic into the side street. The cycle track should be 3 m wide
so there is enough space for both left-turning and straight-ahead cyclists. When
there are few cyclists on a 2 m wide cycle track, a left-turn lane can be installed.
The left-turn cycle lane through the intersection should be marked as a cycle
crossing (preferably blue) since otherwise left-turning drivers might overlook the
cyclists. The turning cyclists should be controlled by a cyclist traffic signal so
that they turn in the initial portion of the phase when they are most visible to
turning cars from the opposite direction.
In T-intersections ramps should be marked with white thermoplastic to make
it easier for cyclists to see the access point. The ramps should be placed in such
a way that the angle of entry is not too sharp. In perpendicular intersections a
long ramp should be installed opposite the road’s centre line for the joint use
of cyclists entering and leaving the T-bar. The cycle lane must not conflict with
motor vehicles’ curve radius.
OTHER TYPES OF INTERSECTIONs
Pavement crossings or continuous pavement over side streets are both standard. Pavement crossings
The cycle track normally continues along the crossing or pavement.
Central traffic islands when cycle tracks cross non-signalized roads or when Central traffic islands where
cyclists have to cross a major road are great for cyclist and pedestrian safety, cycle track crosses roads
sense of security and passability. This applies especially when there is a large
volume of fast moving motor traffic. If not otherwise marked, cyclists on the
crossing path must yield to road users on the road.
Roundabouts are fairly uncommon in Copenhagen although there are a few mini- Roundabouts
roundabouts (see Collection of Cycle Concepts, 2012 on www.cycling-embassy.dk).
Top: Shunt where non-controlled
cyclists ride past the signal control.
Nørre Voldgade near Jarmers Plads.
Bottom left: Cyclists in this
T-junction going straight on are
not controlled by the traffic signal
since the pedestrian crossing is
uncontrolled. Vigerselv Allé at
Vester Fælledvej.
Bottom right: The central island
makes it easier for cyclists and
pedestrians to cross. Valby Lang-
gade/Ny Carlsberg Vej intersection.
2
12
Cycle tracks
More space to bicycles
and less to cars
Top left and right: The standard
PLUSnet cycle track has 3 lanes and
is 3 m wide. It can handle at least
3,500 cyclists an hour. The “sunny
side” of Nørrebrogade opposite
Assistens Cemetary.
Below left: New wide cycle track
(dimensioned to 4.0 m based on a
capacity calculation). Can handle
at least 5,000 cyclists per hour.
Dronning Louises Bridge.
Below right: 2.5 m wide cycle track
is standard outside the PLUSnet.
This width just allows an ordinary
cyclist to overtake a cargo bike – or
vice-versa! A two lane cycle track can
handle at least 2,000 cyclists an hour.
Sections
For over a century cycle tracks have proved their worth and robustness in
Copenhagen traffic planning. Copenhagen cycle tracks have a kerb between the
cycle track and the pavement and between the cycle track and the traffic lane,
thereby giving cyclists their own completely separate area.
Cycle track width has been increased in Copenhagen in recent years. The need
for wider cycle tracks is due to greater cycling volumes, more cargo bikes, greater
differences in cycling speeds, etc. Most recently a superior cycling network was
designated, called the PLUSnet (See the “Copenhagen Bicycle Strategy 2002 -
2025” on www.kk.dk). The PLUSnet will have a high capacity because the cycle
tracks are 3 lane. In addition they make “conversation cycling” possible as two
cyclists can ride side by side and can be overtaken by a third. The extra space
also makes it easier for high speed cyclists, for example e-bikes, to move quickly.
When considering how to install a new or wider cycle track on a section, an
obvious first step is to consider whether parking/stopping spaces for cars on
one or both sides of the road should be removed and whether traffic lane width
should be reduced. Other options to consider are whether the street can be made
one-way for cars and whether, at bus stops, cars can wait behind the stopped
bus, thereby making space for a cycle track, for example.
13
When traffic volumes are large, a capacity calculation should be carried out which Capacity calculations
may result in desired widths of 3m or more. The calculation should be based on
current bicycle traffic and an estimate of a 50% increase in future bicycle traffic
in accordance with the goals set forth in the Copenhagen Bicycle Strategy. When
there are large volumes of cargo bikes these can, in a calculation, be converted
into ordinary bicycles by a factor of 3 (according to the City of Copenhagen Bicycle
Programme “Flow Project”). Capacity is mentioned in the Road Standards.
Standard PLUSnet cycle track width is 3.0 m Standard and minimum
Standard Cycle Super Highway width is 2.5-3.5 m depending on bicycle traffic volume widths of Copenhagen
Standard width of other cycle tracks in Copenhagen is 2.5m cycling facilities
Minimum PLUSnet cycle track width is 2.8 m
Minimum width of a Copenhagen cycle track is 2.2 m (in exceptional cases 1.7 m)
Minimum width of a cycle lane (without a parking lane on the outside) is 1.5 m.
On individual sections, where there is only enough space for a very narrow cycle
track (1.7-1.8 m), the cycle track may be installed if planners decide that cyclist
safety, security and passability taken as a whole would be improved in relation
to the current situation. Such projects should be discussed with the city’s Bicycle
Programme.
Standard pavement width is 2.5 m Commonly used widths
Bus lane is 3.25 m (MOVIA, the Copenhagen bus company, prefers 3.5 m) of other Copenhagen
Bus passenger platform without a shelter is 2.0 m traffic facilities
Traffic lane width without busses in service or many lorries is 3.0 m
In mixed traffic with no cycle track an extra metre should be added to the width
of the traffic lane.
The Road Standards should be consulted in regard to signal systems and the
width of facilities for busses, cars, pedestrians, etc. All Road Standards that are
not included in the stated “norms” are “guideline minimum”.
Cycle lanes make cyclists feel less secure than cycle tracks but more secure than Cycle lanes
in mixed traffic. Cycle lanes cannot be combined with peak hour stop bans, but
cycle tracks can. Cycle lanes with a parking lane along the outside have proved
highly successful. Cycle lanes will often be installed with the same width as
possible future cycle tracks; in the course of the next few years they can then
easily be upgraded to traditional cycle tracks (without having to remove parking
Left: Cyclists on Stormgade ap­
preciate their new cycle track even
though it’s only 1.7 m wide. This
section was considered one of
the “highly problematic sections”
in the Cycle Track Priority Plan
2006- 2016.
Right: When a cycle lane runs along
a parking lane with bays, as shown
here, experience shows that it is
respected on a level with a cycle
track. Vester Farimagsgade at Buen
close to Vesterbrogade.
14
Reinforced cycle lanes
Passenger platforms
Kerbside bus stops
Shared use paths and areas
Two-way cycle tracks
No verge along one-way
cycle tracks
This kerbside bus stop has no
passenger platform and a cycle
track runs through it; cars must
wait for the bus to leave.
Enghavevej at Vesterbrogade.
spaces, etc.). Alternatively, a narrow cycle lane may be installed if planners
decide that this would improve cycling conditions. A necessary prerequisite for
establishing a cycle lane, if it is to be significantly cheaper than a cycle track, is
that it can be done without significant kerb or draining modifications. Cycle lanes
should not be less than 1.5 m wide. If the cycle lane runs along a parking lane the
width should be closer to 2.2 m to facilitate snow clearance, etc.
Reinforced cycle lanes are cycle lanes boosted with a cycle track on short sections,
or by other kinds of enhancement. The idea is that on certain sections cycling
conditions can be improved more cheaply than by installing a continuous cycle
track. The cycle track sections can be installed, for example, at the start/finish of
the facility and at bus stops since according to Road Standards, passengers must
not alight directly on a cycle lane, but they may alight on a cycle track.
Whenever possible separate platforms should be installed so as to make it easier
for bus passengers to cross the cycle track and so that cyclists needn’t stop for
passengers. Minimum platform width is 1.5 m (preferably 2.0 m). In Copenhagen,
there are no zebra crossings across the cycle track to the bus. When space is
limited and traffic volumes moderate, kerbside bus stops may be an option even
though the bus may temporarily block car traffic as passengers get on and off.
Shared use paths for cyclists and pedestrians could be used to a greater extent in
Copenhagen. Since the police often require a divided path with separate lanes for
cyclists and pedestrians, it is advisable to ensure preliminary approval/rejection
early on in the project.
Two-way cycle tracks along the road are used in Copenhagen as an aid to cycling
infrastructure coherence, but not as a standard on-road solution (as in Malmö,
for instance). A two-way cycle track should be designed to be as safe as possible
with a special focus on side streets. The minimum width of a two-way cycle
track in Copenhagen is 3.5 m if it is part of the PLUSnet, otherwise not less than
2.5 m (one of the few stated norms in the Road Standards). A verge should be
installed where there is a two-way on-road cycle track (1.0 m wide, preferably a
solid surface).
Normally there is no verge between a one-way cycle track and parked cars in
Copenhagen since there is rarely enough space for both a wide cycle track and
15
a verge. Top priority is given to maximizing cycle track width. A verge may be
installed where tourist busses stop, at taxi ranks or where there are high volumes
of crossing pedestrians. If a very wide cycle track is installed on a section where
there are high volumes of crossing pedestrians, a verge may be established
between the cycle track and the traffic lane.
Stripes are used to guide cyclists to their designated space. A road marking plan Stripes/road markings
including cycling as an integral part should be drawn up for all projects. Special
road markings to control bicycle traffic is a treatment that is used much too
rarely even though it costs almost nothing to install. One example is the use
of markings painted on the cycle track to improve flow and security. In several
places in Copenhagen a test project has been carried out with promising results
that uses road markings to indicate the conversation cycling area and the fast
lane. The project has not yet been evaluated.
It is crucial that cyclists have enough space when there is neither a cycle track Space for bicycle traffic
nor a lane. Where there are no cycle tracks, enough space should be factored in
so that cyclists can ride in mixed traffic. According to the Road Standards 1.0 m
should be added to the bus lane if, as an exception, cyclists have to use the bus
lane for want of a cycle track.
The cycle track curve radius must not be too tight to facilitate flow; cycle tracks Curve radius and lateral
should be designed to avoid sharp curves and dimensioned to 30 km/h. The gradient
curve radius of cargo bikes (20 km/h) has been dealt with in Danish literature
(not available in English). The radius should allow enough space for small
maintenance vehicles and in some areas tractors. Lateral gradient/transverse
slope (normally 25 ‰) should be towards the pavement when the cycle track
is installed along an existing road. When the road is newly built, however, the
transverse slope should be towards the traffic lane, making drainage grates on
the cycle track unnecessary.
Truck/trailer curve radius/design vehicles should be selected on the basis of Truck-trailer curve radius and
the functional classification of the roadway and the anticipated frequency of design vehicles
extremely heavy vehicles such as semi-trailers. Design vehicles can often be
downsized. Smaller curve radii make it possible for cycle tracks to start and
terminate closer to the intersection than larger radii. However, busses in service
(presently 12.0/13.7 m long) should be able to proceed without hindrance.
Left: This verge/platform is the
exception that proves the rule: In
Copenhagen there is normally no
verge (“door zone”) between the
cycle track and parked cars. Here at
Niels Juelsgade, however, a verge
was installed since the cycle track
is so wide, in relation to the actual
bycycle traffic, that there would be
no point in making it even wider.
Right: On H.C. Andersens Boulevard
near Town Hall Square a curve
radius that was too small was
modified as shown in the photo so
cyclists can maintain normal speed.
At the same time a proper cycle
track was installed instead of the
existing cycle lane.
3
16
Green Cycle Routes
Bridges
Left: Section of the Cycle Super
Highway in central Copenhagen
(Albertslund route). The route is
marked with a temporary orange
stripe along the pavement kerb.
Kampmannsgade.
Top right: Green Cycle Route at
entrance to Amager Fælled at Aksel
Heidesgade and Artillerivej.
Bottom right: This section of the
Nørrebro route has a new red
surface. Thermoplastic should be
mixed with road friction materials
so the surface doesn’t become
slippery when wet.
OTHER CYCLE
INFRASTRUCTURE
Cycle Super Highways are a collaborative regional project between the City of
Copenhagen and the neighbouring municipalities. The focus is on long distance
commuting; joint quality standards have been developed for the Cycle Super
High­ways. The PLUSnet and the Green Cycle Routes are often integrated into
the Cycle Super Highway network. These and other Copenhagen cycling facilities
generally meet the superhighway standards.
Green Cycle Routes consist of greenways, minor roads, bridges, etc. They provide
a charming alternative to cycling along the roads. The purpose of the routes is
recreational as well as for transport. Pedestrian areas are always included. Two-
way cycle tracks on Green Cycle Routes may be 3.5 m wide, for example, foot-
paths 2 .0 m wide. Path width may be reduced on the peripheral sections of the
routes. If shared-use paths are being considered, be sure to get prior approval
from the police.
Bridges often form part of the Cycle Super Highway network and the Green Cycle
Routes. Width is calculated on the basis of anticipated traffic volumes. Plan-
ners should decide whether pedestrians should have their own separate area or
whether pedestrians and cyclists should circulate together. Extra width must be
added at railings and maximum gradients should be considered.
17
Originally, one-way streets in Copenhagen were intended to control motor traf- Contraflow cycling
fic; generally speaking this regulation still applies to cyclists as well. However,
contraflow cycling improves cyclist passability since this often saves cyclists a
detour.
An easy way to install contraflow cycling is to change the signs. In Copenhagen,
in situations when a No Entry sign only controls access at one point, the sign can
often be replaced by a No Motor Vehicles sign thereby allowing cyclists to enter.
The Copenhagen police looks favourably on such “signage solutions”.
When it’s a question of a “proper” one-way street there are two options. The so-
called “tie solution” (Presumably the road markings bear a faint resemblance to
a tie) has proved quite successful in Copenhagen, but at the time of writing the
Copenhagen Police does not allow it, citing relatively new national regulations.
In this treatment, signage and road markings on both sides of the intersection
show that contraflow cycling is allowed. The “cycle lane solution”, which con-
sists of a continuous contraflow cycle track/lane (approx. 2 m wide), is an excel-
lent treatment if there are high traffic volumes and fast moving cars. The pro-
blem with this solution is that on small streets (where the tie solution would be
fine) car parking spaces have to be removed to make the cycle path wide enough
to live up to the main provision of the city ordinances. An alternative solution,
that may be tested in 2014, is to revoke the one-way traffic ban for all traffic,
including cars.
Cycle streets are a new type of street with mixed traffic, where cars have the Cycle streets
duty to yield. To establish a cycle street there should already be a significant
volume of bicycle traffic in relation to motor traffic, or this should be anticipa-
ted. In 2013 the Danish Road Directorate adopted a cycle street signage system.
However, it is still necessary to apply for dispensation in order to establish a
cycle street. The very first cycle street in Copenhagen was approved and estab-
lished in Vestergade in 2013.
Where traffic volumes are low and speeds are slow, cyclists can perfectly well Traffic calming and shared
ride in mixed traffic. Physical traffic calming measures may prove necessary to get space
drivers to slow down. In Copenhagen there are different rules for “living streets”
(15 km/h) and “traffic calmed streets”. In Copenhagen 30-40 km/h speed zones
have only been approved at the 40k/h level. Since the Copenhagen Police have
Top: Brygge Bridge is part of a
Green Cycle Route. The bridge has
made it easier to travel between
Vesterbro and Amager.
Bottom right: A short section
of Vibevej at Frederikssundsvej
was one-way; this also applied to
cyclists. A contraflow cycle lane
solved the problem in 2011. It was
necessary to install a separate
designated cycling space because
there are comparatively many fast
moving cars on the section.
Bottom right: The “tie solution”
exists in many places in the down­
town and central Copenhagen and
as shown here in the medieval
centre. This solution ought to be
generally allowed in Copenhagen;
it is allowed in other Danish police
districts.
18
Shared space The shared space idea is applicable when bicycle traffic volume is low, but is not
advisable with high bicycle traffic volumes, as experience in Holland has shown.
The Danish Road Directorate is working on shared space guide lines; a collection
of examples already exists.
Private roads
Cycling across squares
Pedestrian streets where
cycling is allowed
The cycle paths of the future
Left: Cyclists now have their own
space when crossing Sifs Plads at
Lersø Parkallé and Rådmandsgade.
Top right: Speed bump that cyclists
can ride through. Tietgensgade.
Below right: Cycling in Strædet,
which functions as a parallel link
to the pedestrian street Strøget,
helping to keep Strøget fairly
bicycle-free. The design was
originally approved by the police,
of course.
voiced concerns relating to slow-speed zones, the mayor and the police commis-
sioner are currently in a dialogue to find solutions.
Speed bumps in traffic calmed areas should not continue all the way to the kerb
in order to make it easier for cyclists to get around them. When roads are nar-
rowed or differences in level are installed, planners should focus on minimizing
hindrances for cyclists and should always factor street cleaning, etc. into the
design. Relevant concepts for bicycle friendly traffic calming principles should be
developed and tested on Cycle Super Highways and Green Cycle Routes. When
cycle routes and other primary cycle infrastructure pass through private roads
such roads may be taken over by the public authorities.
Formerly cyclists were rarely allowed to legally cycle across Copenhagen squares.
This meant that law-abiding cyclists had to make a detour. There is a current
focus on “righting past wrongs” and allowing cycling whenever a square is reno-
vated. Most recently an understanding has been reached with the police on an
approach design that clearly marks the spaces designated for cyclists.
Pedestrian streets where cycling is allowed exist in several spots in Copenha-
gen including Strædet, which runs parallel to Strøget. However, cyclists are not
supposed to use the central pedestrianized streets in the historic city centre;
instead, a system of parallel cycle links has been planned (See Cycle Policy 2002-
2012, www.kk.dk). Cycling in pedestrian streets in Copenhagen is normally only
allowed as part of a master plan (e.g. cycle links through the city centre) or where
there are very few cars, pedestrians and bicycles.
Planners are thinking up new solutions for the cycle paths of the future including
green cycling facilities and concerted planning and action to address climate
change, especially excess rain water.
19
In 2007 the City of Copenhagen co-authored a Bicycle Parking Manual (published by the Bicycle parking
Danish Cyclists Federation, available at www.cyklistforbundet.dk). The key to good bicycle
parking planning is: attract attention, choose the right location, outline a solution that
works, make sure there are enough spaces, choose the right racks and stands, make par-
king safe, consider operation and maintenance, spoil the cyclists. For information on the
choice of Copenhagen bicycle racks, the Danish reader is referred to the Design Manual
for urban spaces and parks 2007 (not available in English). There is also an internal me-
morandum on future Copenhagen bicycle parking initiatives (not available in English). An
internal memorandum on future efforts related to better bicycle parking in Copenhagen
has been worked out (not available in English).
In the Copenhagen Master Plan there are stated norms for bicycle parking that are bin-
ding for new construction, etc. in municipal community plans, but that can also serve
as guidelines for a needs assessment in other connections. Work is also being done to
improve bicycle parking facilities at stations, terminals, etc.
Bicycle parking facilities that are installed and funded by the City of Copenhagen, should
be publicly available. This also applies to bicycle parking in street areas funded by housing
associations. As a rule bicycle parking facilities should be placed in the pedestrian area
(positioned to create minimum obstruction). Individual car parking bays may be removed
from street sections in favour of bicycle parking (1 parked car frees up space for 8-10
bicycles). Depending on the parking zone, substitute parking spaces must be provided or
compensation given for loss of revenue.
Bicycle parking may be allowed closer to the corner than stipulated by the 10 metre rule,
always keeping visibility in mind. This is a time-tried Copenhagen solution, both on major
thoroughfares and on side streets to the pedestrianized zones.
“Flex parking” is a fairly recent solution. The idea is that bicycles and cars share the same
on-road parking space at different times of the day. Bicycles park on a kickstand. Flex
parking is now being implemented by the Safe Routes to School project, and elsewhere.
In order to optimize space and resources in other selected spots, rackless parking in a
designated area marked with bicycle symbols may be an option. In 2014 new concepts for
on-street cargo bike parking will be developed.
Top left: On-street bicycle parking
on the corner of the pedestrian
street, Strøget.
Top right: On-street bicycle parking.
A few parking bays were removed
in favour of residential bicycle
parking. Access to the racks is from
the pavement, not the traffic lane.
Sankelmarksgade.
Bottom left: Classical “NO rack” by
Veksø.
Bottom right: The modified “NOLI
rack” by Veksø – safe for magnetic
bicycle lights.
4
20
Asphalt is the surface of choice
1.6 m is minimum passage
width for snow clearance, etc.
Ideally, minimum passage width is
1.6 m. Here the distance between the
kerbs is only 1.5 m, but maintenance
vehicles can still pass because there
is extra space between the kerb and
the bollard. Enghave Plads/Dyb-
bølsgade.
Factoring
Maintenance In
When designing road projects it is crucial to factor future maintenance into the
design. An attractive city, clean lines, and robust materials. The Copenhagen De-
sign Manual for urban spaces and parks 2007 (not available in English) describes
ways of upholding the Copenhagen identity and advises on the choice of lightning,
bycycle parking stands, materials, etc.
Don’t use uneven materials or materials that easily become uneven on cycle tracks.
Asphalt is far and away the best. The PLUSnet requirements for road surface
smoothness are very high. Flagstones tend to shift and settle over time espe-
cially where there is heavy traffic. On squares where cyclists circulate, however,
flagstones may be used if this is an integral part of the total project, but more
frequent maintenance must be anticipated. When in exceptional cases chaussée
stones, paving stones and granite slabs are used on cycle tracks, as a “border”, for
example, they should be saw cut (for smoothness) and jet burned (for friction).
When using a thermoplastic surface the aggregate used must ensure high friction.
1.6 m is minimum passage width for standard snow clearance and road sweeping
vehicles, etc. Greater width (over 1.75) allows cars to pass. Cycle lanes with car par-
king between the cycle lane and the traffic lane should be minimum 2.0 m wide.
On the PLUSnet, where tractors have proved effective for snow clearance, the min.
width should be 2.4 m to give the tractor enough space to work.
21
Side inlet gullies should be installed for cycling comfort when renovating cycle Side inlet gullies and other
tracks and always when installing new cycle tracks. When side inlet gullies can- solutions
not be installed in the kerb between the cycle track and the pavement, a stan-
dard grated gully should be installed in the cycle track instead. A specially con-
structed sliding joint system should be chosen enabling the grating to shift with
the asphalt in connection with frost and thaw. This kind of construction requires
careful compaction around the grate. An increase in maintenance costs may be the
price to pay for greater cycling comfort and more effective utilization of the cycle
track. The traditional type of rigid casing attached to the bed at a frost free depth
should be chosen for the outer edge of the cycle track towards the traffic lane; this
is more robust and can better withstand the weight of lorries and busses. The gully
grate slats should be at right angles to the bicycle wheel.
The lateral gradient on cycle tracks is normally 25 ‰. A significantly steeper gra-
dient, e.g. 40 ‰ (which may be an advantage purely from the maintenance point
of view) should be avoided for the sake of cargo bikes. When installing a new cycle
Lateral gradient
track on an existing road the lateral gradient will normally be towards the pave-
ment. When installing a new road, the lateral gradient on the cycle track should
be towards the traffic lane; since water collects in the traffic lane, drainage grates
on the cycle track will no longer be necessary. For the sake of maintenance as well
as cycling comfort the cycle track should not start and finish with a dropped kerb
across the track (due to frost damage and resulting uneven surfaces).
Bollards are used only exceptionally in Copenhagen; when the use of bollards ex- Bollards should be avoided
ceeds a critical level, drivers will expect bollards in all places where parking is for-
bidden. This might eventually lead to a situation such as the one in Amsterdam
where there are bollards everywhere. Bollards require an additional 0.3m width to
prevent cyclists from hitting them. Bollards may often be used instead of barriers
as an attention catcher. Bollards that need to be dismantled in connection with
operations should have a fastener on top. Alternatively, special barriers which can
be opened automatically without damage to maintenance vehicles, are available.
Troughs are not usually used for cycle track drainage since a trough doesn’t se- Troughs are a last resort
parate cyclists from pedestrians as well as a kerb. However, if the difference in
level between the circulation area and the pavement is insufficient to install a kerb
(without prohibitive costs), a trough may be installed as a last resort. Troughs with
drainage grates are an acceptable solution between a cycle track and a footpath
in green areas.
Left. Newly installed pavement and
cycle track with granite flagstones
(2012). To make it easier to see the
difference between the pavement
and the cycle track round dots were
painted along the edge of the pave­-
ment. Even when the work is well
done there is a risk that the flag­
stones will shift and settle over
time. Vester Voldgade.
Top right: Barriers may be instal­
led where motor vehicles on
the cycle track pose a problem.
The barriers in the photo can be
opened by maintenance vehicles.
Trekronergade/Strømmen.
Bottom right: Side inlet gully
(at kerb between cycle track and
pavement) maximizes the smooth
asphalt cycling surface. Stormgade
is used by large volumes of cyclists.
5
22
Signage
Lighting
Left: A wide inner lane for conver­
sational cycling and an outer fast
lane make it easier for scooters and
fast moving cyclists to overtake
slower cyclists. Grønningen.
Top right: Cycle counters make cyc­
lists feel acknowledged and appre­
ciated. Although the data is not
completely reliable it can be used to
calculate daily and annual variations
and to compare traffic levels from
year to year. Dr. Louises Bridge.
Bottom right: Foot rests at signalized
intersections provide added comfort
and say “Thank you for cycling”. Nørre
Farimagsgade.
Facilities and
equipment
It is vital to show the citizens of Copenhagen and its environs that the City appre-
ciates cycling. Service facilities should consequently signalize a high comfort level.
At the same time steps must be taken to ensure that bicycle facility equipment is
not a hindrance to other road users and does not create problems in connection with
sweeping or snow clearance.
Signage includes both signs to control road user behaviour and directional signs.
There are Road Standards for both, unfortunately only available in Danish.
Directions should be of high quality. Standard directional cycle route signage is used
on the Cycle Super Highways; there is a special signage system on the more recent
Green Cycle Routes. The Copenhagen Bicycle Programme is working (2013-14) on a
new signage system that can handle information on the PLUSnet, the Green Cycle
Routes, the Cycle Super Highways, the National Cycle Routes, etc. Planners are also
considering whether travel distances measured in minutes should be provided in ad-
dition to distances in kilometres.
Road lighting generally applies to all transport modes, including cycle tracks. On
off-road segregated tracks traditional park lamps or bollard lights with a low light
point may be used. The latter are especially effective on tracks through nature reser-
23
ves where only the cycle track need be illuminated. Advanced light sources such as
LEDs open up new opportunities for cycle track fixtures and can provide directional
lighting installed in the road surface. The field of light sources and fixtures is under-
going rapid development and planners are urged to consult with the Traffic Depart-
ment’s lighting section when choosing new lighting. The Copenhagen Design Manual
for urban spaces and parks 2007, deals with this topic.
ITS (Intelligent Traffic Systems) include a number of measures, some of which are ITS
familiar while others are still being tested. One example is a warning to right-turning
heavy vehicles in intersections; bollards informing cyclists of their cycling speed are
another example, making it easier for them to follow the green wave. For more ideas
see the Collection of Cycle Concepts 2012 (www.cycling-embassy.dk). The Bicycle
Programme’s Flow Project is testing several new options. There is an internal fun-
ding pool for ITS solutions.
Whenever there are heavy cyclist flows, planners should always consider installing a Green wave
green wave. Where there are fewer cyclists and a proper green wave is not installed,
planners should ensure that cyclists don’t have to stop unnecessarily at closely spa-
ced signals. Calculations should be based on a 20km/h travel speed. Several Copen-
hagen sections today are synchronized with a green wave for cyclists based on fixed
programs. The second generation systems will focus on improving and integrating
cyclist and bus passability. Green waves should be partially traffic controlled, by car,
bus and bicycle traffic.
Service facilities such as water fountains, pumps, cycle counters, foot rests, angled Service facilities
rubbish bins, etc. should always be considered for new cycle projects. This is a parti-
cular focus area for the PLUSnet and the Cycle Super Highways.
The design of temporary cycling facilities in connection with construction projects Factoring cycling into the
needs prior approval (City of Copenhagen, Technical and Environmental Administra- construction phase
tion). Road projects have to meet very high city requirements when it comes to road
surface smoothness, clear signage and a continuous route. At detours the main rule
is that cyclists should be directed to the traffic lane, not the pavement. All details
including drainage should be checked before submitting the project. Further infor-
mation is available in the Road Standards and in the Collection of Cycle Concepts
2012 (www.cycling-embassy.dk).
Top left: Video detection of cars
prevents cyclists from having to stop
unnecessarily when there are no cars
in the right-turn lane. Langebro at
Artillerivej.
Top right: “Your speed” counter helps
cyclists maintain travel speed in the
green wave. Nørre Farimagsgade.
Bottom left: New type of barrier
material that resembles a crash
barrier separates cyclists from motor
traffic and may be used in addition to
the more traditional concrete barriers.
Bottom right: Modular LED running
lights help cyclists maintain proper
travel speed so that with just a little
more effort they don’t have to stop at
the red light. Øster Farimagsgade.
24

The Planning
Process
A great many players are involved in Copenhagen traffic projects from the
time the project is politically approved to its final implementation. The inter-
nal actors include: project owner, project manager, project group and external
consultant. An essential element of project delegation is that very early on in
the process the actors get a hands-on understanding of the project by inspec-
ting “the field” during peak hours.

A project can be of long duration, sometimes a couple of years, for which rea-
son there is now a special focus on speeding up the process.

Various accessibility and road safety audits have to be carried out along the
way. The audit recommendations are not necessarily in accordance with
Copenhagen planning practice. For example, when road safety auditors re-
commend solutions for which there is no tradition in Copenhagen design prac-
tice (e.g. zebra crossings over cycle tracks at bus stops) planners have to come
up with a more traditional design. In addition, the police in collaboration with
the Traffic Department have to approve the project before it can be imple-
mented. Traditionally the police have only been willing to approve complete
project proposals, but are now more open to the idea of allowing project ideas
so they may be tested early on in the process.

At various stages of the project it is vital to visualize in advance how it will

work in practice. One way to do this is by systematically calculating the po-
tential movement of each road user group. A Vissim bicycle traffic simulation
model has been developed for the City of Copenhagen. It may be used to pre-
dict the interaction between sections and several intersections. It can show
whether the projected waiting area in an intersection is large enough to con-
tain all waiting cyclists. The lifelike simulation also shows whether all cyclists
can manage to cross the road in one phase.

In a city whose stated political aim is to be the most bicycle friendly city in the
world, the bar should be set very high indeed. The City’s planning staff and
consultants should propose the optimal solutions set forth in:

FOCUS ON CYCLING
- Copenhagen Guidelines for the Design of Road Projects.